On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:07:48PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 17/11/17 14:45, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> Add a string list check for common properties ending in "-names" such as
> >> reg-names or interrupt-names.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> checks.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/checks.c b/checks.c
> >> index 4e23f29486bb..346b0256f9cb 100644
> >> --- a/checks.c
> >> +++ b/checks.c
> >> @@ -622,6 +622,21 @@ WARNING_IF_NOT_STRING(stdout_path_is_string, "stdout-path");
> >>
> >> WARNING_IF_NOT_STRING_LIST(compatible_is_string_list, "compatible");
> >>
> >> +static void check_names_is_string_list(struct check *c, struct dt_info *dti,
> >> + struct node *node)
> >> +{
> >> + struct property *prop;
> >> +
> >> + for_each_property(node, prop) {
> >> + if (!strstr(prop->name, "-names"))
> >
> > But that would match "actually-names-dont-matter" as well, resulting in
> > a false positive? Should we check if the string appears at the *end* of
> > the property name?
>
> Perhaps. IMO, once a word is used, it needs to be reserved for that
> purpose. For example, the gpio hogs binding use of "gpios" with just
> numbers and no phandle is bad because we have a mixture of types for a
> given property name or suffix. So we should really enforce that
> "-names" only appears as a suffix and use anywhere else is a warning.
That sounds... overly restrictive to me. The grabbing of a whole
bunch of gpios words is an example of poor - or at least nonstandard -
binding design IMO.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
